Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno Ltd.
421 S.W.3d 198
Tex. App.2013Background
- Ricochet Energy formed in 1996; Hamblin and Lamont owned and managed the company, with Lamont later separating in 2006-2007.
- Ricochet entered 2003-2004 into Prospect Generation Agreements with Vaquillas Energy Lopeno and JOB Energy Partners, paying overhead to identify prospects and present seismic maps.
- The Lopeno Prospect seismic map, known as the Treasure Map, was developed by Ricochet’s geologist Maier and kept confidential among investors and meetings.
- Lamont obtained access to the Treasure Map during separation negotiations in 2007 and signed a Joint Operating Agreement for the Lopeno Prospect as a 29% owner.
- Lamont and Carranco later formed Montecristo II and L.O.G. to lease El Milagro and drill wells, allegedly using the Treasure Map to gain advantage over Ricochet, leading to litigation.
- The jury found misappropriation of the Treasure Map, tortious interference with contracts, and conspiracy; the trial court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade secret existence and improper acquisition | Appellees: Treasure Map remained a trade secret and was obtained by improper means. | Appellants: Map’s status was destroyed by Ricochet disclosures; Lamont’s access was permissible as an investor. | Treasure Map maintained trade secret status; acquired by improper means. |
| Tortious interference with contracts | Appellees contend Appellants interfered with PGAs by using the map to lease/drill El Milagro. | Appellants claim interference was justified by exercising their contractual or vested rights as investors/lessors. | Appellants intentionally interfered with Ricochet’s contracts; no justification defense supported. |
| Legal justification or privilege defense | Lamont and associates lacked a good-faith right to interfere and to use the map against Appellees. | Appellants argue they acted within their contractual rights or equal rights to compete. | No good-faith justification; defense rejected. |
| Conspiracy | Multiple Appellants conspired to misuse the map and deplete the reservoir to injure Appellees. | Argue lack of collective intent or improper collaboration. | Evidence shows a meeting of the minds and participation in a conspiracy by all Appellants. |
| Proximate cause and lost profits damages | Lost profits were based on a reasonable, certain calculation tied to depletion caused by Appellants. | Challenge that damages are speculative and rely on assumptions about third-party drilling. | Proximate cause appropriately defined; lost profits evidence deemed reasonably certain and recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence)
- Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566, 314 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. 1958) (definition of trade secrets and necessity of secrecy)
- Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l., Ltd., 231 S.W.3d 405 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (improper means and post-employment use of trade secrets)
- Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 411 S.W.3d 581 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2013) (employer-proprietary data and pursuit of sweet spots; relevance to improper use)
- Rudes v. Gottschalk, 324 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. 1959) (proximate cause definition used in pattern jury charges)